Re: [DISCUSS] Release new Iceberg docs site in the main repository

+1 Regards JB On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:40 PM Brian Olsen wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > As discussed during the community sync, I'd like to get a vote on moving > forward with the documentation. I have created a PR > (https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9520) that references the changes >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release new Iceberg docs site in the main repository

I did some reviews of the PRs that led up to this, and I think the new site is much easier to maintain and deploy. +1 from my end :) Cheers, Fokko Op ma 29 jan 2024 om 15:15 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré : > +1 > > Regards > JB > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:40 PM Brian Olsen > wrote: > > > > He

Re: Spec change for multi-arg transform

Thanks YE, Ryan and Szehon for your thoughts. As was already touched on, my primary concern is it seems like features were being added to V2 that were not forward compatible. It seems there is consensus that these will be V3 and possibly backported to V2, this makes much more sense. I've added s

Re: [DISCUSS] Release new Iceberg docs site in the main repository

+1 Thanks Brian! Yufei On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 7:57 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > I did some reviews of the PRs that led up to this, and I think the new > site is much easier to maintain and deploy. +1 from my end :) > > Cheers, Fokko > > Op ma 29 jan 2024 om 15:15 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré :

Re: Proposal for REST APIs for Iceberg table scans

Hi All hope everyone is doing well, Wanted to revive the discussion around the Rest Table Scan API work. For a refresher here is the original proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FdjCnFZM1fNtgyb9-v9fU4FwOX4An-pqEwSaJe8RgUg/edit#heading=h.cftjlkb2wh4h as well as the PR: https://github.c

Re: [DISCUSS] Release new Iceberg docs site in the main repository

It looks like we have lazy consensus, so we'll go ahead with the switch-over so we don't need to go through the old process for the 1.5.0 release. Thanks to Brian for pushing this forward, and to everyone that helped review and get this change ready! I think it will be a positive step for improvin

Re: Proposal for REST APIs for Iceberg table scans

As you noted the main point we still need to decide on is whether to have a standard "shard" definition (e.g. manifest plan task) or to allow it to be opaque and specific to catalogs implementing the protocol. I've not replied because I keep coming back to this decision and I'm not sure whether the

Re: Proposal for REST APIs for Iceberg table scans

> > But to move forward, I think we should go with the option that preserves > flexibility. I think the spec should state that plan tasks (if we call them > that) are a JSON object that should be sent as-is back to the REST service > to be used. +1 for this. > One more thing that I would also ch

Re: [DISCUSS] PyIceberg 0.6.0 release

Hey everyone, Since #305 has been merged, I think we're good for the release. Thank you Sung for the PR and Honah for the great review! I think it would be nice to get #311 to get people started